On 3/9/22 1:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 3/1/22 5:53 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> On 3/1/22 5:53 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
>> to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
>> from xen_swiotlb_fixup, so we don't e
On 3/1/22 5:53 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
from xen_swiotlb_fixup, so we don't even need that quirk.
Any chance this patch could be split? Lots of thin
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:49:29PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:25:10PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Thinking more about it we actually need to drop the x
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 03:18:23PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> This indeed allows dom0 to boot. Not sure I see where in the next patch this
> would have been fixed?
I thought it did, but it doesn't. In the meantime I've pushed out an
updated branch with this folded in to:
git://git.infradea
On 3/4/22 12:43 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:36:17PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
I bisected it to "x86: remove the IOMMU table infrastructure" but haven't
actually looked at the code yet.
That looks like the swiotlb buffer did not get initialized at all, but I
ca
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:36:17PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> I bisected it to "x86: remove the IOMMU table infrastructure" but haven't
>>> actually looked at the code yet.
>> That looks like the swiotlb buffer did not get initialized at all, but I
>> can't really explain why.
>>
>> Can you
On 3/4/22 12:28 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:15:03AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Not for me, I fail to boot with
[ 52.202000] bnxt_en :31:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 256 bytes),
total 0 (slots), used 0 (slots)
(this is iscsi root so I need the NIC).
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:15:03AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Not for me, I fail to boot with
>
> [ 52.202000] bnxt_en :31:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 256 bytes),
> total 0 (slots), used 0 (slots)
>
> (this is iscsi root so I need the NIC).
>
>
> I bisected it to "x86: remove the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:49:29PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:25:10PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Thinking more about it we actually need to drop the xen_initial_domain()
> > > check otherwise some cases
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:25:10PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Thinking more about it we actually need to drop the xen_initial_domain()
> > check otherwise some cases won't be functional (Dom0 not 1:1 mapped, or
> > DomU 1:1 mapped).
>
> Hmm,
On 3/3/22 5:57 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:15:03AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Not for me, I fail to boot with
[ 52.202000] bnxt_en :31:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 256 bytes),
total 0 (slots), used 0 (slots)
(this is iscsi root so I need the NIC).
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:25:10PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Thinking more about it we actually need to drop the xen_initial_domain()
> check otherwise some cases won't be functional (Dom0 not 1:1 mapped, or
> DomU 1:1 mapped).
Hmm, but that would be the case even before this series, righ
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:15:03AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Not for me, I fail to boot with
>
> [ 52.202000] bnxt_en :31:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 256 bytes),
> total 0 (slots), used 0 (slots)
>
> (this is iscsi root so I need the NIC).
>
>
> I bisected it to "x86: remove the
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 06:55:47PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Unrelated to this specific patch series: now that I think about it, if
> > io_tlb_default_mem.nslabs is already allocated by the time xen_mm_init
> > is called, wouldn't we potenti
On 3/1/22 9:55 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
from xen_swiotlb_fixup, so we don't even need that quirk.
A
On 3/2/22 8:15 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 3/1/22 9:55 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
from xen_swiotlb_fi
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 06:55:47PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Unrelated to this specific patch series: now that I think about it, if
> io_tlb_default_mem.nslabs is already allocated by the time xen_mm_init
> is called, wouldn't we potentially have an issue with the GFP flags used
> for the
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
> to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
> from xen_swiotlb_fixup, so we don't even need that quirk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> ---
> ar
Allow to pass a remap argument to the swiotlb initialization functions
to handle the Xen/x86 remap case. ARM/ARM64 never did any remapping
from xen_swiotlb_fixup, so we don't even need that quirk.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
arch/arm/xen/mm.c | 23 +++---
arch/x86/includ
20 matches
Mail list logo
